It would only be fitting that I end my blogs with an episode of Seinfeld. This episode was actually on a week ago but I am sure that I remember enough to make this blog credible. In this episode, Jerry is visiting his parents in Florida. They live in a condominium surrounded by old people. News travels fast in this small, elderly community though.
Jerry is minding his business in the kitchen when Jack walks in. Jack is a friend of Jerry's parents and is around the age of sixty. He barges in with his wife and begins to write something on a piece of paper. Jerry asks him if that is the pen that writes upside down and Jack boastfully replies yes. Jerry compliments him on that pen and tells him he's heard a lot about it. Jack seems like a nice guy because he insists that Jerry take the pen. Boy, what a mistake that was. His wife sees this go on and as soon as they leave tells everyone about Jack's generosity and completely twists the story around to make it look like Jerry made Jack take the pen.
Once again, this sounds so small but everyone can relate to such a thing. It's called creating drama by being a busy body. Jack was not at fault and neither was Jerry. Jack was simply being nice and giving Jerry a pen that Jerry appreciated more than Jack. The problem was his wife spreading the word and making Jerry look bad. Next time, you are given something, look to see who is around you. It's often hard to recognize who will vent this situation to another individual and twist the story around to make you look bad. Be careful and always learn about the little situations from Seinfeld.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Values of the Different Classes
The second reading that was due for this week involved the entertainment industry and their display of the people from different classes. The claim to this article was that the middle classes instill good values in one another and the lower class people are displayed in darker colors with confused and incorrect values on things such as education.
We mentioned the movie Rudy and how the kid with a tremendous dream was viewed as slow. Well, this article would be incorrect to say that Rudy was demonstrated as slow because of his family's lower class status. However, it would be absolutely correct in it's claim that lower class families are viewed as caring about school less. Even when Rudy is on the right track at a community college outside of Notre Dame, his father does not acknowledge his grades more than a simple good job. Rudy was supposed to grow up, graduate from high school and work in the factory with his father. His lack of discipline when it came to school work hindered him in his quest for a dream to play football for Notre Dame. I will admit to disagreeing with many of the educated claims in the book this semester. Most of these articles make valid points and if it wasn't for these writings, we would never be educated enough to think outside the box and develop structural, credible essays. It will be hard for me so change my habits of watching movies for entertainment because I have done it for so long. I will work on reading both sides of the situation because it will benefit me in later classes.
We mentioned the movie Rudy and how the kid with a tremendous dream was viewed as slow. Well, this article would be incorrect to say that Rudy was demonstrated as slow because of his family's lower class status. However, it would be absolutely correct in it's claim that lower class families are viewed as caring about school less. Even when Rudy is on the right track at a community college outside of Notre Dame, his father does not acknowledge his grades more than a simple good job. Rudy was supposed to grow up, graduate from high school and work in the factory with his father. His lack of discipline when it came to school work hindered him in his quest for a dream to play football for Notre Dame. I will admit to disagreeing with many of the educated claims in the book this semester. Most of these articles make valid points and if it wasn't for these writings, we would never be educated enough to think outside the box and develop structural, credible essays. It will be hard for me so change my habits of watching movies for entertainment because I have done it for so long. I will work on reading both sides of the situation because it will benefit me in later classes.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Flags Of Our Fathers
This week I decided to take a break a Seinfeld and mix it up with an interesting movie I saw last week. The movie was about the famous statue that you will remember of the soldiers in the Vietnam war pushing up the United States Of America's flag on top of a major hill after battle. The statue is extremely inspirational and shows the determination behind each soldier working as a team to accomplish a task.
However, unless you know about past wars or have seen this movie, you are not sure who those guys are. When the United States finally captured this famous hill, there were many casualties to look down on. The general felt it was a good idea to plant a flag on top to dedicate it to the men that have fallen. Well, after the captain hears about this flag, he decides he wants it to show the president. So they are forced to take it down. The general decides to put another flag up on the hill. This is where we captured that famous statue. It was not the first men to the top of the hill but instead the second men who did not earn this honor or at least that is how they felt. The movie documents how these men were captured in a picture and sent back to the states to promote the war.
The command of the armed forces thought it would be a good promotion to get the people of America to donate money through the purchase of bonds. Everyone praised the three men that were still alive from the picture. The problem was that the men felt sorrow and regret because they were not the original soldiers to mount the flag. It was as if they were taking credit for the heroics of the first men to the top of the hill. I would recommend this movie to anyone who has the stomach to watch the battle scenes. It is interesting to learn about this movie which is based on an entirely true story. I will admit to not knowing that the men in the picture were the second men on the top of the hill and were mounting this flag with no battle going on and for the much, no activity at all around them.
However, unless you know about past wars or have seen this movie, you are not sure who those guys are. When the United States finally captured this famous hill, there were many casualties to look down on. The general felt it was a good idea to plant a flag on top to dedicate it to the men that have fallen. Well, after the captain hears about this flag, he decides he wants it to show the president. So they are forced to take it down. The general decides to put another flag up on the hill. This is where we captured that famous statue. It was not the first men to the top of the hill but instead the second men who did not earn this honor or at least that is how they felt. The movie documents how these men were captured in a picture and sent back to the states to promote the war.
The command of the armed forces thought it would be a good promotion to get the people of America to donate money through the purchase of bonds. Everyone praised the three men that were still alive from the picture. The problem was that the men felt sorrow and regret because they were not the original soldiers to mount the flag. It was as if they were taking credit for the heroics of the first men to the top of the hill. I would recommend this movie to anyone who has the stomach to watch the battle scenes. It is interesting to learn about this movie which is based on an entirely true story. I will admit to not knowing that the men in the picture were the second men on the top of the hill and were mounting this flag with no battle going on and for the much, no activity at all around them.
Semiotics in Batman
Last night, I began to read the passage assigned about the homosexuality in Batman. I must say that the passage pointed out a lot of things to me that I did not notice when I saw Batman. I saw the movie in pieces and vaguely remember the details of the movie. In the discussion today, the part that I found to be interesting was when we discussed nudity in the movie.
I do not want to simply restate what was said at ten this morning. However, I would like to elaborate on the idea that Robin is able to see Batman in just a towel because he knows his secret. I feel that the mask that each superhero uses to conceal his identity can be symbolic in many ways. There is always small flirtation between Batman and Catwoman. This is shown more through the cartoons which I remember watching a kid. He never flirts with Catwoman without his mask on. There are many times that they propose to be allies but never trust each other enough to even let the other one see their true face. Rob has earned that right with Batman. That does not mean he is gay. There are many things that I would tell my friends or confide to my friends in confidence that they will accept and give me advice back. This does not make me homosexual, nor does it mean that this relationship can only be established on an intimate level.
It was said this morning that the director or writer, I forget which one, has acknowledged the fact that there are some signs that may lead to this assumption. However, if you analyze just about anything from a bias point of view in search of what you are looking for, your mind can easily run away with you. It was not the writer's intent to show Batman without his shirt on only in front of another man. I think it was more symbolism in the way that he could trust his identity to his "partner."
I do not want to simply restate what was said at ten this morning. However, I would like to elaborate on the idea that Robin is able to see Batman in just a towel because he knows his secret. I feel that the mask that each superhero uses to conceal his identity can be symbolic in many ways. There is always small flirtation between Batman and Catwoman. This is shown more through the cartoons which I remember watching a kid. He never flirts with Catwoman without his mask on. There are many times that they propose to be allies but never trust each other enough to even let the other one see their true face. Rob has earned that right with Batman. That does not mean he is gay. There are many things that I would tell my friends or confide to my friends in confidence that they will accept and give me advice back. This does not make me homosexual, nor does it mean that this relationship can only be established on an intimate level.
It was said this morning that the director or writer, I forget which one, has acknowledged the fact that there are some signs that may lead to this assumption. However, if you analyze just about anything from a bias point of view in search of what you are looking for, your mind can easily run away with you. It was not the writer's intent to show Batman without his shirt on only in front of another man. I think it was more symbolism in the way that he could trust his identity to his "partner."
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
"She Had Man Hands."
So yesterday I plant myself on the couch and begin to scan through the channels. Lucky for me, my dad just got a new television and it shows the summary of episodes before they come on. I was extatic to see this episode of Seinfeld was about Jerry's girlfriend who was extremely beautiful, but she had male looking hands. It was all Jerry could focus on and he began disgusted with the fact that she had more masculine hands than him.
That all seems like a great story line but it raises questions as to what turns men off. Everyone male is different, but the slightest masculine quality in a woman usually shows through in a definitive way. It sounds shallow to say that it could end a relationship but it would be the same as a feminine quality in a man. Jerry's girlfriend really made it obvious when she cracked his lobster and he began to crindge. Jerry is not a guy that I would consider feminine but his character is more than the average male. My theory is that feminine men are able to spot masculinity in females because they do not have those qualities themselves. As I stated before, it is completley up to taste, but the way that they showed Jerry's girlfriend rub an eyelash from his eye and squeeze his hand when he went in her purse was shear genius.
In no way does this blog bash a masculine quality in females. Some men enjoy these qualities or even body parts in this case. As Seinfeld would say, "not that there's anything wrong with that." What people choose to find attractive is their business.
That all seems like a great story line but it raises questions as to what turns men off. Everyone male is different, but the slightest masculine quality in a woman usually shows through in a definitive way. It sounds shallow to say that it could end a relationship but it would be the same as a feminine quality in a man. Jerry's girlfriend really made it obvious when she cracked his lobster and he began to crindge. Jerry is not a guy that I would consider feminine but his character is more than the average male. My theory is that feminine men are able to spot masculinity in females because they do not have those qualities themselves. As I stated before, it is completley up to taste, but the way that they showed Jerry's girlfriend rub an eyelash from his eye and squeeze his hand when he went in her purse was shear genius.
In no way does this blog bash a masculine quality in females. Some men enjoy these qualities or even body parts in this case. As Seinfeld would say, "not that there's anything wrong with that." What people choose to find attractive is their business.
The Right Topic
Over the past two classes, we have discussed the possible topics and components that should be thought about when selecting a topic. After our discussion, I have began to think that I would be better off writing about the lighting, setting and how the editors decided to use dark blue tint throughout the movie. There seems to be a lot of ways to find quality evidence to support this topic.
The main reason that stood out to be, as far as the choice of lighting, was because the editors did not want the viewer to be able to notice the makeup of the zombies. This also includes the details when they feast upon human bodies. Obviously, they are not using actual human corpses and creating cannibals out of the actors. It would be much more obvious that these fake details are in place is the lighting was bright and it was easy to depict details.
Another interesting detail was how the electricity was only on at the Coffman's building. I realize that he was a rich man before the zombies decided to invade, but why would that make his electricity work better than others? There is a very small value placed on currency and the fact that Coffman has a lot would seem irrelevant. There are many other things that would fall under the same category of how the producers wanted to portray the city. These include the setting that Chiwawa owned in terms of light because he appeared to have some power over the place and even the lighting that the regular citizens used. I realize I am only scratching the surface but I do feel like I will be able to find more details when I research into why producers say they use specific lighting and what people believe the dark tint means.
The main reason that stood out to be, as far as the choice of lighting, was because the editors did not want the viewer to be able to notice the makeup of the zombies. This also includes the details when they feast upon human bodies. Obviously, they are not using actual human corpses and creating cannibals out of the actors. It would be much more obvious that these fake details are in place is the lighting was bright and it was easy to depict details.
Another interesting detail was how the electricity was only on at the Coffman's building. I realize that he was a rich man before the zombies decided to invade, but why would that make his electricity work better than others? There is a very small value placed on currency and the fact that Coffman has a lot would seem irrelevant. There are many other things that would fall under the same category of how the producers wanted to portray the city. These include the setting that Chiwawa owned in terms of light because he appeared to have some power over the place and even the lighting that the regular citizens used. I realize I am only scratching the surface but I do feel like I will be able to find more details when I research into why producers say they use specific lighting and what people believe the dark tint means.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
The Statue
Tonight on Seinfeld, there will be an episode involving Jerry who believe his maid stole a statue from his apartment. I looked ahead in the information to see what episode it was and sure enough, I have seen it numerous times. To sum up this episode, Jerry believes his maid took a certain statue. However, the maid is such a nice guy that he feels bad asking him where it went. Kramer, Jerry's friend, knows that man stole it. Kramer goes to the maids apartment and steals it back.
There is a lot more that goes into this episode to make it funny such as Kramer acting like a cop to enter to maid's apartment. This is not what I want to focus on for this blog though. The fact that Jerry feels bad asking where the statue went raises an interesting question in my mind. Do u just let something like a small, inexpensive statue go or do you confront the man based on principal? I know I would have to confront the man in a passive way and ask him where it went. If he denies and I have no hard evidence, at least I have made the point that I am aware of my surroundings so he would never do it again. If I do not say anything though, I receive his services for longer, and he is an excellent maid. The problem with this is that I have lost the dominate control of the situation. If you purchase something, you are paying for a service and are the one who can choose what kind of service is right for you. You are in the dominate position. In this episode, Jerry lost his dominate position in the relationship and thankfully, his friend had his back.
This may seem like a very boring topic. This is Seinfeld though. It is a show founded on the idea that little situations can amount into huge profits. I enjoy the show because it relates to me and has messages in the show that can effect our everyday lives.
There is a lot more that goes into this episode to make it funny such as Kramer acting like a cop to enter to maid's apartment. This is not what I want to focus on for this blog though. The fact that Jerry feels bad asking where the statue went raises an interesting question in my mind. Do u just let something like a small, inexpensive statue go or do you confront the man based on principal? I know I would have to confront the man in a passive way and ask him where it went. If he denies and I have no hard evidence, at least I have made the point that I am aware of my surroundings so he would never do it again. If I do not say anything though, I receive his services for longer, and he is an excellent maid. The problem with this is that I have lost the dominate control of the situation. If you purchase something, you are paying for a service and are the one who can choose what kind of service is right for you. You are in the dominate position. In this episode, Jerry lost his dominate position in the relationship and thankfully, his friend had his back.
This may seem like a very boring topic. This is Seinfeld though. It is a show founded on the idea that little situations can amount into huge profits. I enjoy the show because it relates to me and has messages in the show that can effect our everyday lives.
Topic Searching
So far, we have watched around fifty minutes of the movie Land of the Dead. Most of the main characters have been introduced up to this point and there have been a number of topics that have jumped out at me. Most of the ones that I thought of though were not present on the list. I have to say that this sort of movie is not my first pick when I walk into the movie store, but I am learning more about analyzing movies and realizing that perhaps I fall into advertising traps.
After I glanced over the topics in class today, I realized that I have very limited exposure to movies of this kind. I have not seen any of the other related movies to this series. However, the topic involving fandom, which I later learned dealt with fans, jumped out at me. This topic seems like fun to research and write about because I am not in this particular "fandom." As the readings have stated, people often fall into advertising traps and do not properly analyze a movie when viewing it. To some embarrassment, I am absolutely one of these people. This movie is not boring and fake to me. My preconceived notion of this flick was completely wrong. The reason I am enjoying this movie so far is because I hardly ever watch a real zombie movie. Usually my movies involved comedy in relation to American Pie or Old School with all the same jokes just presented differently. This movie presents more opportunities to research and learn more about a certain aspect of this movie. So far, it looks as if I'll be researching fandom and The Land of the Dead.
After I glanced over the topics in class today, I realized that I have very limited exposure to movies of this kind. I have not seen any of the other related movies to this series. However, the topic involving fandom, which I later learned dealt with fans, jumped out at me. This topic seems like fun to research and write about because I am not in this particular "fandom." As the readings have stated, people often fall into advertising traps and do not properly analyze a movie when viewing it. To some embarrassment, I am absolutely one of these people. This movie is not boring and fake to me. My preconceived notion of this flick was completely wrong. The reason I am enjoying this movie so far is because I hardly ever watch a real zombie movie. Usually my movies involved comedy in relation to American Pie or Old School with all the same jokes just presented differently. This movie presents more opportunities to research and learn more about a certain aspect of this movie. So far, it looks as if I'll be researching fandom and The Land of the Dead.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
The Close Talker
Have you ever began talking to someone and they began to physically grow closer to you as the conversation continues? Well, Seinfeld created an episode about the way people sometimes invade other people's personal comfort space when engaged in a conversation. Elaine has a boyfriend who is a close talker and of coarse, this is television so they take it to the extreme. He grows so close to character's faces that it almost appears they may touch lips.
Elaine's friends, Jerry, Kramer and George, all notice how close this man gets to them when he talks. When Kramer is first introduced to him, he actually falls down from leaning back to far. This raises the important question. How close is too close? Is there a certain measurement we should have established for talking distance and if there was, what would be consequences of violating this act? Thankfully, there was no issue with Elaine's boyfriend's breathe. I know this is something which everyone has encountered multiple times in their lives and I find it extremely hard to actually tell a nice person to step off a little bit. Later in the episode Jerry decides that he is not going to back down anymore. He is going to stand his ground and talk to him face to face from a distance that is uncomfortable to watch from my couch. The plan sort of backfires though. Jerry expects to gain respect and the man might back off, but he did not. It is just his nature to be a close talker and there's nothing they could do about it. Clearly, Elaine's shallow behavior lead to their breakup which in their opinion was inevitable.
Elaine's friends, Jerry, Kramer and George, all notice how close this man gets to them when he talks. When Kramer is first introduced to him, he actually falls down from leaning back to far. This raises the important question. How close is too close? Is there a certain measurement we should have established for talking distance and if there was, what would be consequences of violating this act? Thankfully, there was no issue with Elaine's boyfriend's breathe. I know this is something which everyone has encountered multiple times in their lives and I find it extremely hard to actually tell a nice person to step off a little bit. Later in the episode Jerry decides that he is not going to back down anymore. He is going to stand his ground and talk to him face to face from a distance that is uncomfortable to watch from my couch. The plan sort of backfires though. Jerry expects to gain respect and the man might back off, but he did not. It is just his nature to be a close talker and there's nothing they could do about it. Clearly, Elaine's shallow behavior lead to their breakup which in their opinion was inevitable.
Analyzing Movies
The readings for this week involved the audience's ability to properly analyze all the different aspects of a movie. Though we have not been able to discuss these articles in class yet, there is many things to be said about the readings. The two passages relate to one another but focus on slightly different areas. The second reading was about a man named Roger Ebert. He is an extremely famous movie reviewer.
He spoke of the fact that audience's watch movies based on their advertisement budgets. This means that people go to the movies which are broadcast on a large scale to them. People tend to neglect subtitle films and watching movies more as a witness than a collaborator as he stated in this passage. I agree that people do tend to witness a movie rather than stop the movie and discuss it with their peers. People try to grasp the overall plot of the movie more. I think Roger Ebert is trying to get the audience to focus on the director's intentions and critique things such as lighting or setting. The only problem I have with this is that stopping a film to discuss it ruins the flow and can take away from the suspense or emtions portrayed on screen. For example, if we are about to hit the climax in a movie and my friend stops to talk about the lighting, my mind is redirected off the subject and the movie's intentions of reaching a climax is lost.
In conclusion, Roger Ebert is a credible reviewer who makes excellent points when he speaks of people not watching enough movies that aren't broadcast often in advertising. We should become more active and expand our horizons. However, I think he may have gone into too much detail about what his job entails and not enough of about why expanding my horizons will be beneficial. His opinion is clear, but his justification does not appeal to me as the reader.
He spoke of the fact that audience's watch movies based on their advertisement budgets. This means that people go to the movies which are broadcast on a large scale to them. People tend to neglect subtitle films and watching movies more as a witness than a collaborator as he stated in this passage. I agree that people do tend to witness a movie rather than stop the movie and discuss it with their peers. People try to grasp the overall plot of the movie more. I think Roger Ebert is trying to get the audience to focus on the director's intentions and critique things such as lighting or setting. The only problem I have with this is that stopping a film to discuss it ruins the flow and can take away from the suspense or emtions portrayed on screen. For example, if we are about to hit the climax in a movie and my friend stops to talk about the lighting, my mind is redirected off the subject and the movie's intentions of reaching a climax is lost.
In conclusion, Roger Ebert is a credible reviewer who makes excellent points when he speaks of people not watching enough movies that aren't broadcast often in advertising. We should become more active and expand our horizons. However, I think he may have gone into too much detail about what his job entails and not enough of about why expanding my horizons will be beneficial. His opinion is clear, but his justification does not appeal to me as the reader.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
One Magic Luggi
Last night, Seinfeld viewed possibly their greatest episode ever. This episode featured, Jerry, Keith Hernandez, Kramer and Newman. The episode begins with Kramer and Newman expressing their hate for Keith because they thought he spit on them after a baseball game. After Keith gets the chance to explain he could not have spit on Kramer and make it do a U-turn to hit Newman, they forgive him. The part of this episode which was also in our reading was the relationship between Jerry and Keith.
The readings last week dealt with queerness and grabbed my attention immediately when Seinfeld was mentioned. I will admit to laughing at Jerry's ability to over analyze the situation. The show does indirectly make fun of the homosexual audience. Jerry tries to make it sound like when they go out its like a date but takes an adamant stand to not being gay. The situation could easily be replaced with a well known actress but instead, they use a male baseball player. I never noticed how much Seinfeld mentions little situations which they shoot down or poke fun at homosexuality. This was an obvious situation but there are punch lines now that I notice when I was the shows and they can be interpreted as insulting to a particular crowd.
I truly love the show for how it is able to analyze everyday situations. Now though, I realize how certain people could be offended with the way they portray women and gays. The problem is that Seinfeld is no longer around to make any changes in their show and these episodes will be around for a very long time.
The readings last week dealt with queerness and grabbed my attention immediately when Seinfeld was mentioned. I will admit to laughing at Jerry's ability to over analyze the situation. The show does indirectly make fun of the homosexual audience. Jerry tries to make it sound like when they go out its like a date but takes an adamant stand to not being gay. The situation could easily be replaced with a well known actress but instead, they use a male baseball player. I never noticed how much Seinfeld mentions little situations which they shoot down or poke fun at homosexuality. This was an obvious situation but there are punch lines now that I notice when I was the shows and they can be interpreted as insulting to a particular crowd.
I truly love the show for how it is able to analyze everyday situations. Now though, I realize how certain people could be offended with the way they portray women and gays. The problem is that Seinfeld is no longer around to make any changes in their show and these episodes will be around for a very long time.
Essay Number 2
This week we will be handing in our second essays. This essay was somewhat related to the advertising essay but focused on reality television. In both essays, there is the ability to analyze what writers, editors, and producers seem to be portraying to the public. My reality television essay was created to answer the question of if reality television is truly real.
The second essay I found to be more challenging than the first. The reason I say this is because this essay it was more difficult to not repeat what it was I was saying. I found myself continuous coming up with the same explanation to reasons why reality television is not real. However, this is a topic which once again I was passionate about. I too am sick of reality television doing so well in our society. It felt good to be able to put my thoughts about this subject on paper. I enjoy the brainstorming part where I was able to list reasons why something took place on Joe Millionaire for instance. I could say they were editing a sentence that was not there, or the producers were not showing the camera in hopes of letting the minds of the audiences wander. The show was able to fool a lot of people but as soon as I saw it, I knew something was up. There had been no contact of the kind between the two individuals other than kissing and it seemed odd that the girl would be alright with partiicipating in these actions in the middle of the woods. Overall, I enjoyed the essay once again. It is fun to put your thoughts on paper and not have to regurditate information like every other class.
The second essay I found to be more challenging than the first. The reason I say this is because this essay it was more difficult to not repeat what it was I was saying. I found myself continuous coming up with the same explanation to reasons why reality television is not real. However, this is a topic which once again I was passionate about. I too am sick of reality television doing so well in our society. It felt good to be able to put my thoughts about this subject on paper. I enjoy the brainstorming part where I was able to list reasons why something took place on Joe Millionaire for instance. I could say they were editing a sentence that was not there, or the producers were not showing the camera in hopes of letting the minds of the audiences wander. The show was able to fool a lot of people but as soon as I saw it, I knew something was up. There had been no contact of the kind between the two individuals other than kissing and it seemed odd that the girl would be alright with partiicipating in these actions in the middle of the woods. Overall, I enjoyed the essay once again. It is fun to put your thoughts on paper and not have to regurditate information like every other class.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tic Tac
Have you ever seen someone do something and that you could get away with it? Then later you see that their brilliant plan has backfired in your face. Well, this happened to Elaine this week on Seinfeld. This man in her office is a sidler. Seinfeld defines a sidler as a quiet person which can approach your side at anytime without you even knowing it. Elaine was watching how this man would come by her side and take credit for her work while they were in front of the boss.
Elaine decides to give him tic tac mints to monitor his position at all times. She then gets greedy and tries to sidle herself. She buys new tennis shoes which will minimize her noise when she walks. She sidles in Mr. Peterman's office, her boss, and tries to gain the credit that the sidler man deserves. The plan backfires when the work is unacceptable and she is punished for it. This is another Seinfeld situation which happens in everyday life but also shows the viewers a lesson. First off, you cannot really trust the work of someone else. By assuming you will reap the benefits of their work, you are gambling with your credibility. Next, karma has a way of coming around on you. Just because you are not caught the first time you do something wrong does not mean you will not be caught ever. Doing the right thing is not always the easy thing, but it's important to do the right thing as much as you can.
The brilliance of Seinfeld managed to make me laugh again with an everyday occurrence. I encourage the readers to continue doing the right thing and avoid plagiarism. Just remember, karma will come back to bite you if you don't.
Elaine decides to give him tic tac mints to monitor his position at all times. She then gets greedy and tries to sidle herself. She buys new tennis shoes which will minimize her noise when she walks. She sidles in Mr. Peterman's office, her boss, and tries to gain the credit that the sidler man deserves. The plan backfires when the work is unacceptable and she is punished for it. This is another Seinfeld situation which happens in everyday life but also shows the viewers a lesson. First off, you cannot really trust the work of someone else. By assuming you will reap the benefits of their work, you are gambling with your credibility. Next, karma has a way of coming around on you. Just because you are not caught the first time you do something wrong does not mean you will not be caught ever. Doing the right thing is not always the easy thing, but it's important to do the right thing as much as you can.
The brilliance of Seinfeld managed to make me laugh again with an everyday occurrence. I encourage the readers to continue doing the right thing and avoid plagiarism. Just remember, karma will come back to bite you if you don't.
Change In Perspective
This week in class we had readings and dicussions which dealt with sexual orientation. The clip of Dawson's Creek showed the preconceived notion that most people have for gay people. In the reading, there was a part which talked about Ellen's Show in comparison to friends. Television has presented the subject in a comical way and thus creates homophobia amongst the viewers.
On Monday, I spoke up and asked why shows are being rediculed. At least they are addressing the issue somewhat and trying to make some effort to reach a homosexual crowd. Well, that opinion was before I read the second reading and began to realize what exactly television is displaying. I was trying to give writers the benefit of the doubt and give them credit for addressing the issue. However, I did not realize how they are presenting it to the public. Television is a major means of communication that can drastically influence the opinions of it's viewers. For example, Friends has Susan and Carol make a shirt for their boy, Ben, which said "I love my mommies." That may be cute but to a homosexual this can be somewhat offensive that they are using this phrase to bash their lifestyle. Ellen came out of the closet and her ratings went down the drain. Friends addressed a homosexual issue as a comedy and kept their ratings the same. This just goes to show how the writers don't care who they are affending. As long as the profit continues to role, it does not matter what certain people think is offensive.
In conclusion, I did not realize what I was saying until I read the second essay and looked at it from a homosexuals perspective. Television should not be focused on making their lifestyle a comedy and it would be better off to not address the issue. They are not reaching out to a crowd. They are taking a topic and running with it in the wrong direction.
On Monday, I spoke up and asked why shows are being rediculed. At least they are addressing the issue somewhat and trying to make some effort to reach a homosexual crowd. Well, that opinion was before I read the second reading and began to realize what exactly television is displaying. I was trying to give writers the benefit of the doubt and give them credit for addressing the issue. However, I did not realize how they are presenting it to the public. Television is a major means of communication that can drastically influence the opinions of it's viewers. For example, Friends has Susan and Carol make a shirt for their boy, Ben, which said "I love my mommies." That may be cute but to a homosexual this can be somewhat offensive that they are using this phrase to bash their lifestyle. Ellen came out of the closet and her ratings went down the drain. Friends addressed a homosexual issue as a comedy and kept their ratings the same. This just goes to show how the writers don't care who they are affending. As long as the profit continues to role, it does not matter what certain people think is offensive.
In conclusion, I did not realize what I was saying until I read the second essay and looked at it from a homosexuals perspective. Television should not be focused on making their lifestyle a comedy and it would be better off to not address the issue. They are not reaching out to a crowd. They are taking a topic and running with it in the wrong direction.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Put It On The Tab...
It was just another Wednesday until Seinfeld came on. Once again the show is able to brighten my boring day. This episode is one of my favorites mostly because it features Kramer so much. Kramer always comes in Jerry's apartment and eats his food and uses his stuff. He vows, for his own pride, to start paying for everything he eats and keeping track of it. Seinfeld always seems to have these shows where u look at the story and can remember a time when you did that. I know I have borrowed a few things I intended to gave back but forgot.
The funny part about this story though is that he keeps track of the bites of ice cream he takes and all the small chunks taken out of the fruit. He would take a bite out of a fruit and count it for twenty cents and put it back where he found it. You have to love how television is able to make something like this a story line. As a class we are not beginning to work out of the advertising phase and work into television. I truly believe that Seinfeld has paved the way for shows about nothing and the fact that they can make it. Seinfeld has molded the sitcoms on prime time to be like it in many ways. People want something that they can relate to. Seinfeld features a blunt woman, a comedian, a short, wiry, bald guy and a big goof. There is no racial profiling on Seinfeld or sexual orientation reference that is able to be identified as crude.
Seinfeld takes such subjects and having black friends or being homosexual and makes an episode about how offended people get. There is such episodes that features homosexuality and after every single reference to it, they reply with, "not that there's anything wrong with that." This way no one is offended and it is made funny. The ability to take certain questionable subjects on television and transform then into comedy is an art. This show is the master of that art.
The funny part about this story though is that he keeps track of the bites of ice cream he takes and all the small chunks taken out of the fruit. He would take a bite out of a fruit and count it for twenty cents and put it back where he found it. You have to love how television is able to make something like this a story line. As a class we are not beginning to work out of the advertising phase and work into television. I truly believe that Seinfeld has paved the way for shows about nothing and the fact that they can make it. Seinfeld has molded the sitcoms on prime time to be like it in many ways. People want something that they can relate to. Seinfeld features a blunt woman, a comedian, a short, wiry, bald guy and a big goof. There is no racial profiling on Seinfeld or sexual orientation reference that is able to be identified as crude.
Seinfeld takes such subjects and having black friends or being homosexual and makes an episode about how offended people get. There is such episodes that features homosexuality and after every single reference to it, they reply with, "not that there's anything wrong with that." This way no one is offended and it is made funny. The ability to take certain questionable subjects on television and transform then into comedy is an art. This show is the master of that art.
Gender Bias
This week in class we read an article about men and women roles on television. To refute my posting last week, women do seem to play a role on television of less importance. I can see how their roles portray them as less important or less capable. Even in the shows I mentioned last week, Desperate Housewives and Grey's Anatomy, the women play dominate roles but their problems seem small compared to the men. A male doctor is the cardiovascular surgeon and said to be the best doctor in the hospital.
This raises the controversial issue of women being better or worse at high authoritative jobs. After reading a study conducted in Reader's Digest, there are pros and cons to this situation. They placed headphones on a male and a female. In each headphone, two separate stories were played and they were asked after to recall what was said. The woman tried to grab bits and pieces from each ear. However, the male ruled out one side and focuses intently on the other side and his story was much more detailed than the woman’s story. So, this concludes that women can better multitask but men can get a single job done better. Interesting how a mom could wash the dishes and hear the kids in the living room playing. She is able to do both or neither of the tasks. The father could do one or other completely but would not be able to participate in the other task. This sort of brings up the situation of sacrifice or gamble. You are gambling on whether the woman can complete both tasks successfully with the chance that neither will get done. The man is a more definite decision and involves sacrifice and opportunity cost.
In conclusion, the roles on television adhere to views by the public. What I mean by that is what the public finds acceptable. As long as the great reviews come in, the writers are doing their job and doing something right. Though it is off the topic, it reminded me of this situation with the headphones as I read about job positions.
This raises the controversial issue of women being better or worse at high authoritative jobs. After reading a study conducted in Reader's Digest, there are pros and cons to this situation. They placed headphones on a male and a female. In each headphone, two separate stories were played and they were asked after to recall what was said. The woman tried to grab bits and pieces from each ear. However, the male ruled out one side and focuses intently on the other side and his story was much more detailed than the woman’s story. So, this concludes that women can better multitask but men can get a single job done better. Interesting how a mom could wash the dishes and hear the kids in the living room playing. She is able to do both or neither of the tasks. The father could do one or other completely but would not be able to participate in the other task. This sort of brings up the situation of sacrifice or gamble. You are gambling on whether the woman can complete both tasks successfully with the chance that neither will get done. The man is a more definite decision and involves sacrifice and opportunity cost.
In conclusion, the roles on television adhere to views by the public. What I mean by that is what the public finds acceptable. As long as the great reviews come in, the writers are doing their job and doing something right. Though it is off the topic, it reminded me of this situation with the headphones as I read about job positions.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
It's A Festivus Miracle!
The grind is over. After a long day at work, I settle myself on the couch for two quality episodes of seinfeld. Right off the first thiry seconds, I know what episode is on and I'm in for a treat. The episode is focused around George and his dad Frank. Frank developed a holiday called Festivus to replace the commercial Christmas that everyone gets to experience. He wants to be a trend setter and his traditions are extremely awkward and hilarious that he developes over the years. Kramer, George's friend, catches wind of this intriguing idea and wants in. He wants to be apart of Festivus and asks Frank for help.
This episode is inciteful in many ways. On the one hand, the viewers are watching how interesting it can be to be different around the holidays. Seinfeld is able to put a twist on subjects that people find regular and boring. Instead of sitting around the Christmas tree, they sit around an aluminum pole, high strength to weight ratio, and tell stories about all the ways everyone has disappointed them over the past year. The holiday sounds rude but don't we all have things built inside of us that we want to tell other people. Don't we often want people to recognize when they have done something to disappoint us in some way. I for one would like a plain holiday like this. Obviously I would not want things to get hostile in any way but just the idea of a separate holiday shows us that it's not really that weird. From Kwanza to Christmas, the difference in cultures celebrate their beliefs in different ways. I love the show and I love the way this episode can be viewed in so many ways.
Tonight was a great example of how Seinfeld relates situational nothings to spark peoples interest. We all should take something from this episode. Even if it it just a lighet mood with a different perspective about other different celebrations. I would recommend to at least try to show and then think about what you went through during your day. Odds are some part of Seinfeld mentioned it.
This episode is inciteful in many ways. On the one hand, the viewers are watching how interesting it can be to be different around the holidays. Seinfeld is able to put a twist on subjects that people find regular and boring. Instead of sitting around the Christmas tree, they sit around an aluminum pole, high strength to weight ratio, and tell stories about all the ways everyone has disappointed them over the past year. The holiday sounds rude but don't we all have things built inside of us that we want to tell other people. Don't we often want people to recognize when they have done something to disappoint us in some way. I for one would like a plain holiday like this. Obviously I would not want things to get hostile in any way but just the idea of a separate holiday shows us that it's not really that weird. From Kwanza to Christmas, the difference in cultures celebrate their beliefs in different ways. I love the show and I love the way this episode can be viewed in so many ways.
Tonight was a great example of how Seinfeld relates situational nothings to spark peoples interest. We all should take something from this episode. Even if it it just a lighet mood with a different perspective about other different celebrations. I would recommend to at least try to show and then think about what you went through during your day. Odds are some part of Seinfeld mentioned it.
Gerbner's Findings
This week was the first week that we really took the focus off advertisements. Though we did not have class Monday and Wednesday was a blizzard, the readings from this week focused on something that everyone engages is everyday, television. The second part of the first reading was about George Gerbner's findings and coorelations he developed when studying what messages are sent through television.
Don't worry. This is more of an editorial about the readings then a summary. Gerbner's research was extremely detailed but also very bias. He is able to constuct percentages and shocking statistics about what he wants to find on television. I can only agree with him to an extent. His statements about male genders playing more significant roles and how women are easier to persuade is only his opinion. It's funny how Desperate Housewives and Grey's Anatomy are the two most popular prime time shows now. Desperate Housewives is all about women and the things they go through. Men do not have significantly powerful jobs and don't run the show in their respective relationships. Grey's Anatomy is focused around Dr. Meredith Grey. Yes, I'll admit it that my girlfriend got me hooked and I do watch it every Thursday religiously. This is not the point though. Dr. Yang, a woman, is the best resident with the highest cridentials. In both shows, women are the main focus and their roles are more signifcant and powerful than that of the men.
I am not saying that George Gerbner's finding are completely false. He may have a point when he speaks about crime and even health. However, the target age groups are there for a reason. It is a business. No one ever said that business was fair or unbias. Ask Donald Trump how business works. Gerbner is simply contributing to what he finds appauling. He is trying to shape television by lending his opinion. As I read this, it became obvious to me that he was doing nothing more than stirring the pot even more. Credible are his sources, shocking are his statistics, but hypocritical are his conclusions.
Don't worry. This is more of an editorial about the readings then a summary. Gerbner's research was extremely detailed but also very bias. He is able to constuct percentages and shocking statistics about what he wants to find on television. I can only agree with him to an extent. His statements about male genders playing more significant roles and how women are easier to persuade is only his opinion. It's funny how Desperate Housewives and Grey's Anatomy are the two most popular prime time shows now. Desperate Housewives is all about women and the things they go through. Men do not have significantly powerful jobs and don't run the show in their respective relationships. Grey's Anatomy is focused around Dr. Meredith Grey. Yes, I'll admit it that my girlfriend got me hooked and I do watch it every Thursday religiously. This is not the point though. Dr. Yang, a woman, is the best resident with the highest cridentials. In both shows, women are the main focus and their roles are more signifcant and powerful than that of the men.
I am not saying that George Gerbner's finding are completely false. He may have a point when he speaks about crime and even health. However, the target age groups are there for a reason. It is a business. No one ever said that business was fair or unbias. Ask Donald Trump how business works. Gerbner is simply contributing to what he finds appauling. He is trying to shape television by lending his opinion. As I read this, it became obvious to me that he was doing nothing more than stirring the pot even more. Credible are his sources, shocking are his statistics, but hypocritical are his conclusions.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Bro or Manzere?
We have the idea. We will walk into NBC and tell them we have a show about nothing! That pretty much sounds like the most unsuccessful idea ever, but Seinfeld managed to do it. This show is one of a kind and proves that a situational nothing can actually be a thirty minute episode.
One of the episodes last night was focused around George's father, Frank, and his enormous breasts. It all starts out with George and my favorite character Kramer waiting for Frank to get dressed so they can go out. Well frank takes off his shirt and reveals some big hooters. This sparks an idea in Kramer's mind. He is sympathetic towards Frank's sore back and thinks that support would help him. This is no cartoon. Kramer actually wants to develop a male bra. George is completely appauled and becomes furious with Kramer after he proposes it to Frank. Frank thinks this may be a good idea and they should try to market it to the public.
Why is this so wrong? Well, male bras are not socially acceptable in our culture. It doesn't matter if they are hooked in the back by velcro or not. I could sympathize with elderly men and I for one would not ridicule it because I will be old one day too. There are two ways to look at it and I feel like if it is not noticable or distracting, let him wear "The Bro." As is turns out, Frank tries it and his wife is disgusted. Estelle, Frank's wife, threatens to divorce him and wants him to move out. She is sick of his stunts and wants separtion from him for a while. Frank and Kramer pursue the possibility of marketing their product. The idea is shot down fast but long enough to make a thirty minute episode centered around this topic. The show is pure genius.
One of the episodes last night was focused around George's father, Frank, and his enormous breasts. It all starts out with George and my favorite character Kramer waiting for Frank to get dressed so they can go out. Well frank takes off his shirt and reveals some big hooters. This sparks an idea in Kramer's mind. He is sympathetic towards Frank's sore back and thinks that support would help him. This is no cartoon. Kramer actually wants to develop a male bra. George is completely appauled and becomes furious with Kramer after he proposes it to Frank. Frank thinks this may be a good idea and they should try to market it to the public.
Why is this so wrong? Well, male bras are not socially acceptable in our culture. It doesn't matter if they are hooked in the back by velcro or not. I could sympathize with elderly men and I for one would not ridicule it because I will be old one day too. There are two ways to look at it and I feel like if it is not noticable or distracting, let him wear "The Bro." As is turns out, Frank tries it and his wife is disgusted. Estelle, Frank's wife, threatens to divorce him and wants him to move out. She is sick of his stunts and wants separtion from him for a while. Frank and Kramer pursue the possibility of marketing their product. The idea is shot down fast but long enough to make a thirty minute episode centered around this topic. The show is pure genius.
Writing My Paper
The saga is over. Today I finished my final publication for my paper on how the advertisements I chose were directed toward me. For me, this writing experience can be summed up in one word, unique. I will not major in any kind of writing and going into this class, I did not feel like I would like it or it would benefit me in the least. However, I realized by writing this paper that this sort of assignment is kind of fun. I have only been in college for one semester but already I am sick of taking notes and studyng from them.
This writing assignment gave me a chance to search through magazines and develope a project. It was kind of like being back in high school again. The assignment was unique and allowed me to complete a college assignment without reading a whole lot and instead just expressing what I thought of a certain advertisement. Writing four pages did not turn out to be that difficult once I got on a roll.
The assigment also made me realize the things I need to work on. It's easy to look at your paper and find a bunch of things wrong with it. When I first read my essay as a rough copy, I was pretty much bored with it. However, with some editing I think I helped make a pretty good paper that I am proud to hand in. I have a lot of things I need to work on and creating more tone in my next approach will be vital. In conclusion, the paper I worked on was my first experience with an assignment that I enjoyed doing while in college. Hopefully the next topic is as easy to write about for me. I enjoy sitting down and putting my thoughts into publication. It was a unique experience for me since I have been in college.
This writing assignment gave me a chance to search through magazines and develope a project. It was kind of like being back in high school again. The assignment was unique and allowed me to complete a college assignment without reading a whole lot and instead just expressing what I thought of a certain advertisement. Writing four pages did not turn out to be that difficult once I got on a roll.
The assigment also made me realize the things I need to work on. It's easy to look at your paper and find a bunch of things wrong with it. When I first read my essay as a rough copy, I was pretty much bored with it. However, with some editing I think I helped make a pretty good paper that I am proud to hand in. I have a lot of things I need to work on and creating more tone in my next approach will be vital. In conclusion, the paper I worked on was my first experience with an assignment that I enjoyed doing while in college. Hopefully the next topic is as easy to write about for me. I enjoy sitting down and putting my thoughts into publication. It was a unique experience for me since I have been in college.
Friday, February 2, 2007
"Stick A Fork In Me Jerry, I'm Done"
Ahh yes, the best time of the day has come around. I am sprauled out on the couch ready to watch Seinfeld. This episode mostly featured Jerry, Newman, and Kramer. Kramer is a different kind of character but is always reliable for a dumb idea to entertain me. Today he decided that he was going to use butter as a moisturizer because he was orginally sick of how his face felt after shaving. Instead of using a vasoline or after shave, he elected to use butter because he enjoyed the way it made his skin feel.
Now we all realize how stupid this idea is because of how it would make ur face smell and how unnatural it is to moisturize with butter. He decides, since it feels so good on his faces, he is going to use it all over his body. Jerry is disgusted with the idea and tells him he does not want to hear about it again. After a quick run to the store, he comes home to find Kramer fallen asleep on the roof tanning. He smells like turkey cause of the butter and he believes he has been baked. Newman, the typical overweight character, grows a fond attraction for Kramer's representation of food.
The idea was completely rediculous and falling asleep on a roof baked in butter will not cook a person. That is what makes this situation so bizarre and hilarious. Also, no other person is going to want to eat you if you bath in butter and smell like turkey. We reserve a word called cannabolism for that type of practice. Later in the episode, Kramer ends up spilling shreaded garlic on himself and holding a green leaf. Newman sees his opportunity to eat Kramer. Of coarse, this is not a cartoon and he is abruptly brought back to reality by Jerry. Kramer's idea once again has found a flaw. Please, next time you think a cooking device can be used for something else, think of Kramer and the possible bad outcomes that can result from it.
Now we all realize how stupid this idea is because of how it would make ur face smell and how unnatural it is to moisturize with butter. He decides, since it feels so good on his faces, he is going to use it all over his body. Jerry is disgusted with the idea and tells him he does not want to hear about it again. After a quick run to the store, he comes home to find Kramer fallen asleep on the roof tanning. He smells like turkey cause of the butter and he believes he has been baked. Newman, the typical overweight character, grows a fond attraction for Kramer's representation of food.
The idea was completely rediculous and falling asleep on a roof baked in butter will not cook a person. That is what makes this situation so bizarre and hilarious. Also, no other person is going to want to eat you if you bath in butter and smell like turkey. We reserve a word called cannabolism for that type of practice. Later in the episode, Kramer ends up spilling shreaded garlic on himself and holding a green leaf. Newman sees his opportunity to eat Kramer. Of coarse, this is not a cartoon and he is abruptly brought back to reality by Jerry. Kramer's idea once again has found a flaw. Please, next time you think a cooking device can be used for something else, think of Kramer and the possible bad outcomes that can result from it.
Image Is Everything
Our readings this week were directed towards images. We were to analyze pictures and what we thought of them or what message was trying to be sent across. Well, my partner and I were given the images of the Virgin of Guadeloupe. In these two images, there are many similarities and differences in the messages being sent.
The lower picture is an painting on the side of a building in Chicago, while the other appears to be in Mexico. It is obvious because we know about the difference in structural design and also small clues that help the reader to identify the location. In the lower picture, there is a family immigrating into the United States, or at least that is message being sent here. However, if you look closely you see there is a man trapped behind a fence. This fence must symbolize the border between Mexico and the United States. This painting has more of an impact on society today because our president proposed to build a wall divided the two countries. This painting was not done before the presidents proposal so the way Americans view it now may be different.
The proposal to build a wall dividing the United States and Mexico has it's pros and cons. For example, many people may be for the building because it will help eliminate illegal immigrants from coming into the U.S. and taking away American jobs. On the other hand, The Virgin of Guadeloupe would not be for the increase in hostility. Overall, this picture can relate to the real world situation by showing people what religion would choose and we always believe that religious figures, such as the one on painting, would enjoy peace and harmony amongst all people. The picture even differs from the top in the way the people are represented. In the bottom, where there are no cracks on the building, they have color to their faces. This could be interpretted as the way Americans view their culture and people or that the Mexican mural did not have as detailed, gifted artists to design their picture.
The lower picture is an painting on the side of a building in Chicago, while the other appears to be in Mexico. It is obvious because we know about the difference in structural design and also small clues that help the reader to identify the location. In the lower picture, there is a family immigrating into the United States, or at least that is message being sent here. However, if you look closely you see there is a man trapped behind a fence. This fence must symbolize the border between Mexico and the United States. This painting has more of an impact on society today because our president proposed to build a wall divided the two countries. This painting was not done before the presidents proposal so the way Americans view it now may be different.
The proposal to build a wall dividing the United States and Mexico has it's pros and cons. For example, many people may be for the building because it will help eliminate illegal immigrants from coming into the U.S. and taking away American jobs. On the other hand, The Virgin of Guadeloupe would not be for the increase in hostility. Overall, this picture can relate to the real world situation by showing people what religion would choose and we always believe that religious figures, such as the one on painting, would enjoy peace and harmony amongst all people. The picture even differs from the top in the way the people are represented. In the bottom, where there are no cracks on the building, they have color to their faces. This could be interpretted as the way Americans view their culture and people or that the Mexican mural did not have as detailed, gifted artists to design their picture.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Little Jerry Seinfeld
We all know and appreciate how horrid it can feel to be blackmailed. In this episode, Jerry is blackmailed by a man working at a small corner shop in New York. Jerry wrote a check that did not clear and therefore, the man placed the check in the window for everyone to see. Jerry obviously became frusterated because not only did he try to give him the money after, but it was a clown check and caused him much embarrasement.
The episode opens with Jerry walking by the shop and noticing that he bounced the check in the window. After paying the man, he believes that he will take it down and all will be forgotten. However, the man knows his position in this deal and refuses to take the check down. Jerry says he will do anything and explains how embarrasing it is for people to see this clown check in the window. A few days later, Jerry and Kramer are walking down the street. They notice the check again and approach the man about it. Well, the odd thing about this situation is that Kramer has recently adopted a rooster and the man notices. The man says if the rooster, named Little Jerry Seinfeld, competes in a cockfight tonight at his store, he will take the check down. Kramer allows this to go on and Little Jerry wins the cockfight.
The man does not uphold his end of the bargain and leaves the check in the window. Jerry is furious and threatens to take it down himself. The man says he has a new deal. If Little Jerry can beat the champion cockfighting rooster, he will take the check down. So Kramer and Jerry train Little Jerry just like a boxer. Kramer is not the sharpest tool in the shed though and decides to give Little Jerry a hot tube experience. The next day Little Jerry is extremely tired and fatigued. When the time comes for him to fight, Kramer sees how big the other bird is and leaps into the cockfight ring. The other bird pecks away at Kramer's face and Jerry can only sit and watch while Kramer saves Little Jerry but gets pumpled by this massive rooster. He realizes how wrong he was for using someone else's pet for his benefit. It's funny what blackmail can make some people do.
The episode opens with Jerry walking by the shop and noticing that he bounced the check in the window. After paying the man, he believes that he will take it down and all will be forgotten. However, the man knows his position in this deal and refuses to take the check down. Jerry says he will do anything and explains how embarrasing it is for people to see this clown check in the window. A few days later, Jerry and Kramer are walking down the street. They notice the check again and approach the man about it. Well, the odd thing about this situation is that Kramer has recently adopted a rooster and the man notices. The man says if the rooster, named Little Jerry Seinfeld, competes in a cockfight tonight at his store, he will take the check down. Kramer allows this to go on and Little Jerry wins the cockfight.
The man does not uphold his end of the bargain and leaves the check in the window. Jerry is furious and threatens to take it down himself. The man says he has a new deal. If Little Jerry can beat the champion cockfighting rooster, he will take the check down. So Kramer and Jerry train Little Jerry just like a boxer. Kramer is not the sharpest tool in the shed though and decides to give Little Jerry a hot tube experience. The next day Little Jerry is extremely tired and fatigued. When the time comes for him to fight, Kramer sees how big the other bird is and leaps into the cockfight ring. The other bird pecks away at Kramer's face and Jerry can only sit and watch while Kramer saves Little Jerry but gets pumpled by this massive rooster. He realizes how wrong he was for using someone else's pet for his benefit. It's funny what blackmail can make some people do.
Interpreting Calvin Klein Advertisements
Why is it today that people have to be so strongly opinionated and seek a course of action anytime a company expands their boundaries? Calvin Klein recently published images of adult models and children wearing their brand of underwear. Now Calvin Klein is being accused of contributing to child pornography and using homosexual images to draw more youth into their market. The major problem here is that adults, parents mostly, believe Calvin Klein used images hinting at teenage sexuality to sell to the youth market. There thesis could not be more ridiculous.
It is obvious over the last couple years, advertisements and the media has taken enormous steps to producing more graphic images. If I were working for Calvin Klein and parents approached me about the issue, I would ask them how I am supposed to see a product if people can only see it through the plastic wrap. Parents do not complain about seeing adolescents in half nude images, but the thought of a child appalls them. Children seem to care more about what they look like or what brand they are wearing than adults do. Calvin Klein was only trying to show how cool or comfortable kids can feel when wearing their underwear. It is a little extreme to say they are contributing to child pornography. People realize now how easy it is so sue a company and read into any messages they can to try to shape the world as they see it in their mind. Seeing a few young boys wearing Calvin Klein underwear laughing does not make them appeal to homosexual men.
The point of this article is trying to attack the company for publishing images that may or may not push the envelope. I still do not see any other way for children to see the underwear. It really is a shame that it's come to this, but once in a while it would be nice to not see people complain over such small issues. It is true that their are sick people in the world with fetishes of this nature, but no one is harmed in the posting of these images.
It is obvious over the last couple years, advertisements and the media has taken enormous steps to producing more graphic images. If I were working for Calvin Klein and parents approached me about the issue, I would ask them how I am supposed to see a product if people can only see it through the plastic wrap. Parents do not complain about seeing adolescents in half nude images, but the thought of a child appalls them. Children seem to care more about what they look like or what brand they are wearing than adults do. Calvin Klein was only trying to show how cool or comfortable kids can feel when wearing their underwear. It is a little extreme to say they are contributing to child pornography. People realize now how easy it is so sue a company and read into any messages they can to try to shape the world as they see it in their mind. Seeing a few young boys wearing Calvin Klein underwear laughing does not make them appeal to homosexual men.
The point of this article is trying to attack the company for publishing images that may or may not push the envelope. I still do not see any other way for children to see the underwear. It really is a shame that it's come to this, but once in a while it would be nice to not see people complain over such small issues. It is true that their are sick people in the world with fetishes of this nature, but no one is harmed in the posting of these images.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
"Give Me the Bread You Old Bag!"
The evening time is a boring time, unless you are able to catch three episodes of Seinfeld on two different television networks. The episode today consisted of George's family meeting Susan's family for the first time. The recently engaged, George and Susan, knew the families would clash and embarrasement for the two was sure to follow.
In the beginning, George's family arrives at Susan's house where they first encounter her family. Things seem to be going well as the night progresses. After a delicious meal, the Castanzas, George's parents, realize the bread they brought was never placed out on the table for everyone to enjoy. So, they take the bread back which we all know follows no etiquette at all. On their way home, George realizes they took the bread and becomes furious. He realizes how bad this makes his family look, so he decides that he will place another bread in their kitchen when they arrive tomorrow.
The next day George realizes how hard it will be to smuggle a bread in the house without them seeing. So he arranges that Jerry, his friend, bring him the bread and give it to him through the window of their house. Jerry goes to pick up the bread and an old lady gets the last one right in front of him. He offers her a rediculous amount of money and explains his horrible situation for his friend. After the lady refuses, Jerry takes matters into his own hands and takes the marble rye bread from the old lady. He yells, "Give me the bread you old bag." Then he runs to their house and gives the bread to George. George feels home free, except when he turns around, Susan's parents are standing there watching him. He ended up looking much worse than he intended and embarrased to say the least.
We all know how hard it is to impress parents, and George did everything he could to not make his family look bad. In the end, he caused an old woman much grief and embarrased himself and his family more than he could have ever thought possible. Perhaps next time, George won't let his parents be so cheap.
In the beginning, George's family arrives at Susan's house where they first encounter her family. Things seem to be going well as the night progresses. After a delicious meal, the Castanzas, George's parents, realize the bread they brought was never placed out on the table for everyone to enjoy. So, they take the bread back which we all know follows no etiquette at all. On their way home, George realizes they took the bread and becomes furious. He realizes how bad this makes his family look, so he decides that he will place another bread in their kitchen when they arrive tomorrow.
The next day George realizes how hard it will be to smuggle a bread in the house without them seeing. So he arranges that Jerry, his friend, bring him the bread and give it to him through the window of their house. Jerry goes to pick up the bread and an old lady gets the last one right in front of him. He offers her a rediculous amount of money and explains his horrible situation for his friend. After the lady refuses, Jerry takes matters into his own hands and takes the marble rye bread from the old lady. He yells, "Give me the bread you old bag." Then he runs to their house and gives the bread to George. George feels home free, except when he turns around, Susan's parents are standing there watching him. He ended up looking much worse than he intended and embarrased to say the least.
We all know how hard it is to impress parents, and George did everything he could to not make his family look bad. In the end, he caused an old woman much grief and embarrased himself and his family more than he could have ever thought possible. Perhaps next time, George won't let his parents be so cheap.
Advertisement or Manipulation?
Is it possible that advertisements are able to manipulate our thoughts and convince us to falsely believe? Well, as I began to read the assigned pages, I realized the key words that are often overlooked when glancing at advertisements. If you take a minute to sit back and read an advertisement for what it is, and not what it is trying to make you assume, you will be amazed.
Advertisements have been able to use weasel words to take the focus off of their product. A person may wonder why they would want to do that. Although, they may express confidence in their product, advertisers have much more confidence in the better situations that they link to their product. For example, a dishwasher detergent says to "leave dishes virtually spotless." Are you able to spot the weasel word? A reader would begin to think of using the detergent and finding a spotless, shiny plate. However, the advertisement does not promise that the dishes will be clean. The problem here is the definition of virtually. If it is not clean by my standards, will the company reimburse my purchase?
There are many other weasel words that advertisers use to get you to stop thinking about their product and start thinking about something bigger and better. Words such as acts, works, like and even in combination such as works like. As a member of the premium target market today, it is somewhat offensive that advertisers think they can persuade me by these words. In contrast, they are able to conduct studies and find the most effective means of selling their product. So, if this is what they choose to do, and it is not infringing on my rights, then I can only adapt to their style. Next time you get a chance, read an advertisement for what it is on paper. Interpret the words in literal meaning and see what the manufacturer is promising. You will be amazed.
Advertisements have been able to use weasel words to take the focus off of their product. A person may wonder why they would want to do that. Although, they may express confidence in their product, advertisers have much more confidence in the better situations that they link to their product. For example, a dishwasher detergent says to "leave dishes virtually spotless." Are you able to spot the weasel word? A reader would begin to think of using the detergent and finding a spotless, shiny plate. However, the advertisement does not promise that the dishes will be clean. The problem here is the definition of virtually. If it is not clean by my standards, will the company reimburse my purchase?
There are many other weasel words that advertisers use to get you to stop thinking about their product and start thinking about something bigger and better. Words such as acts, works, like and even in combination such as works like. As a member of the premium target market today, it is somewhat offensive that advertisers think they can persuade me by these words. In contrast, they are able to conduct studies and find the most effective means of selling their product. So, if this is what they choose to do, and it is not infringing on my rights, then I can only adapt to their style. Next time you get a chance, read an advertisement for what it is on paper. Interpret the words in literal meaning and see what the manufacturer is promising. You will be amazed.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)